The Nightmare of Christian Cults

[quote name='Strell']*whooosh*

The problem I'm expressing is that the conversation can't take place on the intermotrons because of the built-in attitude from you and yours. Even if I appeal toward polite and honest discussion, it just doesn't happen, and it's because you're closeting in any opposition as zealotry. It's a black and white issue, which makes you no different from fanaticals. An assumption that's quite wrong when it comes to me, particularly, because I'm not running around with "six thousand years old" signs or protesting abortion clinics.

So the problem is with you, solely, because I'm up for questioning and conversation. You aren't. You never are, never have been, and never will be, and will just crawl back into your self-serving little hole where you make pewpew sounds and pretend you're superior.

You want to deal with zealots with a particular brand of narcissism by reflecting their own tactics, but making sure to specifically say "I'm not doing the same thing." Pull out all this "I give up when the ole Xtian rope-a-dope comes out" rhetoric and then imitate it with less panache than you're so convinced you have, because hey - why stand up and ask for talk when you can duck the conversation because you're so bored that you're on the net arguing it, yet telling me you're life is so interesting you don't have time?

Yeah, ok. I'm cool with that. It's just another missed opportunity. I'll log it away with all the others and further chip away at the hope.

Do add in some anti-RIAA stuff while you're at it. Let's make sure all your pistons are firing.

I can't even get mykevermin to do this, so I'm not sure why I'd expect more from any of his me-toos.[/QUOTE]

Quite frankly what you're discussing is boring as hell. Yes there are moderate Christians live moral lives, do charity work, don't hold overly controversial views and yes that is nice. No I don't have a problem with any of that, even if personally I am not a fan of miracle religions. I think most people would agree.

This thread started out about what happens when Christianity goes wrong in modern America. When hypocritical megalomaniacs form a cult of gullible people for their own selfish reasons, and how typically noone is taken to task for these crimes when they slap a Christian label on their cult. Jputa hijacked it (and forgive me for confusing him by quoting the bible - initially I found his contradictory ramblings on what so-called "true" Christians believe to be mildly entertaining)
 
oh, hi!

The Old Testament contains 3 basic sets of laws.

Civil -- these laws governed Israel as a theocratic nation. Many of the laws were made designed to set the Israelites apart from their heathen neighbors. Some of them were even pictures of just that (the law dealing with not wearing fabrics made out of two materials was a reminder not to intermarry with the pagans and thus, risk losing the whole point of their religious lives). Unless you live in theocratic Israel at about 1500-1000 BC, these don't apply to you. They were a (failed) attempt to keep Israel pure, though God still preserved the line of the Messiah even with all of Israel's screw ups.

Ceremonial -- These were the laws governing worship, sacrifices, temple ordinances, etc. These were all pictures ("shadows") of Jesus and are completely unnecessary in a post-Easter world. Note God's commands shortly after Jesus' ascension to eat the unclean animals, associate with the Gentiles. The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross did what no animal sacrifice could (but could only point toward)--forgiving the world's sins.

Moral -- This is probably best summarized in the 10 Commandments. These are universal moral principles and still apply to everyone. In fact, though people may block it out, these laws are all innate to human beings (written on the heart, so to speak) which is vastly different than the Civil or Ceremonial laws. For instance, you're not likely to find someone who says killing and stealing are good ideas. But no one would have a clue, by nature, what a grain or fellowship offering ought to be.

Misunderstanding for what purpose a given law was made causes all sorts of problems, which I noticed above somewhere. I'm not really sure what this thread is even about, but I thought I'd poke my head in while waiting for the laundry to finish. :)
 
[quote name='daroga']oh, hi!

The Old Testament contains 3 basic sets of laws.

Civil -- these laws governed Israel as a theocratic nation. Many of the laws were made designed to set the Israelites apart from their heathen neighbors. Some of them were even pictures of just that (the law dealing with not wearing fabrics made out of two materials was a reminder not to intermarry with the pagans and thus, risk losing the whole point of their religious lives). Unless you live in theocratic Israel at about 1500-1000 BC, these don't apply to you. They were a (failed) attempt to keep Israel pure, though God still preserved the line of the Messiah even with all of Israel's screw ups.

Ceremonial -- These were the laws governing worship, sacrifices, temple ordinances, etc. These were all pictures ("shadows") of Jesus and are completely unnecessary in a post-Easter world. Note God's commands shortly after Jesus' ascension to eat the unclean animals, associate with the Gentiles. The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross did what no animal sacrifice could (but could only point toward)--forgiving the world's sins.

Moral -- This is probably best summarized in the 10 Commandments. These are universal moral principles and still apply to everyone. In fact, though people may block it out, these laws are all innate to human beings (written on the heart, so to speak) which is vastly different than the Civil or Ceremonial laws. For instance, you're not likely to find someone who says killing and stealing are good ideas. But no one would have a clue, by nature, what a grain or fellowship offering ought to be.

Misunderstanding for what purpose a given law was made causes all sorts of problems, which I noticed above somewhere. I'm not really sure what this thread is even about, but I thought I'd poke my head in while waiting for the laundry to finish. :)[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. Occam's razor cuts them into ribbons, but at least your post and viewpoint have an aesthetically pleasing internal logic.
 
Hey, 'bout damn time. Though I must disagree with your statement about the 10 Commandments being innate. Now, no murder? Sure, yeah, okay. But some of the other ones are a little hazy. No other gods? Now, there's something that sure as hell doesn't seem "innate" to me. You could say that that follows under the things that people block out, but... well, that's arrogant as hell, so please don't do that. 'Sides, how is "Remember the Sabbath" even come close to being "written on the heart" (or even a moral issue)? And "no stealing" to the many, many groups around the world that had until very recently no concept of property?

...

And I still don't know what this conversation is going on about.
 
Sin causes all sorts of problems, as it warps our undersanding, darkens or completely throws off kilter the conscience, etc. It's not unlike giving an infant a pair of red-tinted glasses or contacts that he wears 24 hours a day, and then ask him later in life to help you with color identification. He's never known anything but that red-tinted world, so it's going to be troublesome for him to help or even understand when you tell him things he says are wrong. Sin is much the same way, as it warps our perception of the world from birth, and for each person in specialized, semi-unique ways.

The innate knowledge is a little bit more fundamental than the Ten Commandments. In your theft example, what's written on the heart is more along the lines of "Hey, I shouldn't screw over someone else so that I can advance." That, of course, plays out in a lot of different ways, theft being one of them. The problem with the Ten Commandments arises when someone thinks if they can keep the external works they condemn perfectly (which they can't anyway, for the sake of argument...) that they're cool in God's eyes. In other words, "As long as I don't kill someone, I'm all set with that commandment!" That's why Jesus further explained that hate and out of control anger are murder in the heart, as is lust the same thing as adultery.

Perhaps, as I think threw it now, while the Ten Commandments are more of less present on the heart (though obscured and warped by sin--you certainly can find someone who will tell you that killing someone is just dandy), perhaps a better summary of that innate law is how Jesus summarized the two tables of the law: Love God above all things and love others as you love yourself. That more or less covers it all and helps address your good Sabbath Day example (which is far more about respect for God and his Word than it is about not working on Saturday).

---

We have embarked on making this thread about something, and by golly, we're gonna do it!
 
I like the part in the story where god got pissed at someone and decided to flood the entire planet, killing everyone. All of them (including babies) were "guilty" in his eyes. He is a most wise and just god. It was also pretty cool when he killed 42,000 people because someone mispronounced the word "shibboleth"..and when he was "insulted" by a few people in a city and ordered Moses to burn the city down and slaughter all of the men, children, and non-virgin women..but to keep the virgin girls alive to be raped repeatedly. God's many demands for for mass murder, rape, and slavery are most admirable. His wisdom and sense of justice continues to amaze me. Long live Christianity.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']I like the part in the story where god got pissed at someone and decided to flood the entire planet, killing everyone. All of them (including babies) were "guilty" in his eyes. [/quote]

This couldn't be more incorrect.

This is why proper discourse on this subject is impossible.

I'd have to let daroga have the other stuff, since I'm not nearly practiced, but this sort of simplification in the name of "hur hur religions is teh dumb" just makes you look childish.

Again, want to discuss something? Do your research. This is too much to ask when it comes to a subject the internets made its mind up about long ago.
 
Did the Christian God flood the entire world to destroy humanity (including all children) due to their "wickedness" or not? Did he command Moses to burn down a city and kill all inhabitants (except the rape victims) or not? I notice christians like to overlook the more nasty aspects of their bible and their God...glossing over aspects of his behavior that make Hitler look like a boy scout by comparison. Very convenient.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']Did the Christian God flood the entire world to get a "fresh start" or not? [/quote]

First off, if you're atheist, then this clearly didn't happen, right? 'Cuz then it was in the Bible, which according to you has no scientific basis and very little historical, meaning it never happened. So, surely, in your big bad scientific mind, you see the contradiction of getting angry over something that never happened, right? Tell me if you can't now. I'd hate to think I need to break out the hand puppets to make a point.

Second, my issue was with how you were personifying the whole situation to begin with. Primarily because you have no clue what God was thinking (this is something we as humans believe we can explicitly do), meaning you can't know who he did and didn't consider guilty. Somewhere in the Bible it talks about children being free from sin, or at least born in innocence, but I don't know the exact passages/interpretations/readings/whatever. So to start blanket-statement-ing the whole thing from your perspective makes no sense.

Third, if you want to argue "the facts" of the story, it has little more to do with "God was angry at some person." He was pissed about a lot of things, so, again, your simplification does no one any service except your own foregone conclusions. Daroga could provide much better insight on this cataclysm.

You know, the one you don't think happened, but it magically happened when you start arguing against it. Which is just adorable.

Did he command Moses to burn down a city and kill all inhabitants (except the rape victims) or not?
Click to expand...

I dunno. And I don't discuss stuff I'm not prepared on. So I won't touch this until I find out.

I notice Xtians like to overlook the more nasty aspects of their bible and their God...glossing over aspects of his behavior that make Hitler look like a boy scout by comparison. Very convenient.
Click to expand...

Rofl, no. There's actually always a huge contingent of religious authority that teaches nothing but fire and brimstone - that one should fear and be afraid of God. They are called Catholics and I'm quite sure you've heard of them. I think they might have their own sitcom on occasion, and possibly even a tiny country in their name, but I could totally see how that might have 100% escaped you, in the same way I'd suspect you don't know about cars.

There are studies on all books, aspects, stories, verses, etc of the Bible going on at all times all across the world in various religious segments. And I assure you a TON of them are focusing on nothing but the bad stuff. There's a huge schism between the "Jesus Buddy" factions versus the "God will kick your ass" ones. And those people have NO problem or trouble or hesitation in saying that God will give you the infinite middle finger if you, say, have impure thoughts, and bring his celestial hammer down.

You've had Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson expressly saying things like 9/11 and Katrina were punishments from an angry God on America, people who turn out the vengeful smiting thing all over the place, and a general consensus from people like you that Christians are a bloodthirsty people in the name of their own ends. People who proudly stand up and proclaim that George Bush's appeal to the religious right during the initiation of the wars we're in is totally something Jesus would do.

In fact, to suggest that Christians generally put aside the fact that God is totally down for some smotin' is hilarious. That's why there's hell to begin with.

So, again, sounds like you're the one glossing over something, simplifying it down to a laughably inept nugget and trying to proclaim it's as big as a mountain.
 
Yes I'm simplifying it down to a "laughably inept nugget"..a tiny thing really, just FLOODING THE ENTIRE F*CKING PLANET AND KILLING EVERY MAN, WOMAN, AND CHILD.

rofflecakes.

If God were truly all knowing and all powerful, couldn't he have used a bit of discretion and just killed off the people who pissed him off? It is the "badass" side of God that makes me shake my head. I can't understand how rational people can consider such a depraved and petty being capable of creating the entire universe. And speaking of creation...Why did it take a being of infinite power 6 days to create the earth and one to "rest".. Why couldn't he snap his fingers and do everything at once? lol..These stories are so obviously earthbound and man-made that it blows my mind people take it seriously.

I honestly wouldn't mind christians if they believed these stories and kept them to themselves.. I have no problem at all with crazies until they try and spread this nonsense to gullible victims. But when they try and "intelligent design", taught in classrooms, they are acting against reason. They are crippling the mind of innocent victims and damaging society.. One way to arm people against it is to reveal some of the nonsensical stories and contradictory beliefs of christianity.. Admittedly I'm horrible at this and there are much more persuasive arguments by this guy and this guy for instance.


..but at least I was able to type a few sentences. ;)
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']How dare George Lucas profit from the death of all those Bothans! And the people of Alderaan! What scumbags all the people in the movie industry are, right on down to the pimply nerds who tear my tickets in half! How can they possibly live with themselves knowing that they are making money from the deaths of billions of people over the years, as depicted on the giant screens at the local multiplex![/QUOTE]

Is what you're saying.
 
God damn I hate when the arguments get stuck on "moral"...
[quote name='Strell']First off, if you're atheist, then this clearly didn't happen, right? 'Cuz then it was in the Bible, which according to you has no scientific basis and very little historical, meaning it never happened. So, surely, in your big bad scientific mind, you see the contradiction of getting angry over something that never happened, right? Tell me if you can't now. I'd hate to think I need to break out the hand puppets to make a point.
[/QUOTE]
Um. Strell. Careful how you go about this, here. This is pretty damn close to "You don't believe it, therefore, why are you talking about it?"

A person is plenty justified in criticizing the morality of something, even if they don't believe it happened. Especially if it is an important part of the beliefs of someone else.

...

Butfuckwhatever. Like I said, I hate arguments from morality.
 
[quote name='Strell']There's actually always a huge contingent of religious authority that teaches nothing but fire and brimstone - that one should fear and be afraid of God. They are called Catholics and I'm quite sure you've heard of them.[/QUOTE]

I was following you right up until you got to this point. I've been going to church for 40+ years and school for 12+ years and never heard it like that. You need to check it out first-hand rather than relying on what others with an agenda have said. Otherwise, carry on.
 
@TC

It's not a moral argument at all.

My point is that the outrage expressed re: the flood occurs at three points:

1) It happened, killing a bunch of people. This fails if you don't think it happened, or don't know it happened. So you can't uphold this.

2) God did it. If you think there isn't a God, then you can't fake outrage too long until someone points out that your outrage is fake.

3) Getting mad at a group of people who believe the flood happened and God did it, formulate their lives around it, and proceed to affect public/political policy. This I can agree to, because church and state should be separate, and I wouldn't like it any more than anyone else if my life comes under control from a group of people I don't agree with.

But 3 is wholly different from 2 and 1, and doesn't fall under this "why bleev it/y so sryus" umbrella.

If I'm missing the point, tell me how and where - I'm not here to clamp out discussion.

[quote name='soonersfan60']I was following you right up until you got to this point. I've been going to church for 40+ years and school for 12+ years and never heard it like that. You need to check it out first-hand rather than relying on what others with an agenda have said. Otherwise, carry on.[/QUOTE]

Ok, I'm being a bit unnecessarily harsh. And also partially joking, where the joke is generally that Catholics are a bit more rule-minded than other denominations. Miss church, go to hell. Don't confess, go to hell. It's a stereotype and I'm exploiting it here unfairly, and should probably be careful with how I deploy it.

I have a lot of first hand experience with the Catholic church, given that my grandparents on my mom's side were hardcore Italian immigrants, which made my mom a strong proponent for years of her life, and generally has me in the company of the congregation all over through family ties and community. Further, my ex was in the same boat, and I went to more than one service where I'd joke that "they'll smell me out and crucify me."

So it's not said out of hate or an unfamiliarity - I was exaggerating. But I'll concede it wasn't the most truthful thing to say, so I'll make that clear now.

The larger point is that the idea that religious folk won't highlight the destructive powers of their deity is wrong. Hell, you can find no shortage of people downright happy to claim cataclysms to their godhead's doing - it's like some people are keeping score on a giant cosmic billboard.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']I like the part in the story where god got pissed at someone and decided to flood the entire planet, killing everyone. All of them (including babies) were "guilty" in his eyes. He is a most wise and just god. It was also pretty cool when he killed 42,000 people because someone mispronounced the word "shibboleth"..and when he was "insulted" by a few people in a city and ordered Moses to burn the city down and slaughter all of the men, children, and non-virgin women..but to keep the virgin girls alive to be raped repeatedly. God's many demands for for mass murder, rape, and slavery are most admirable. His wisdom and sense of justice continues to amaze me. Long live Christianity.[/QUOTE]

Yeah the OT god is pretty hardcore. He makes Odin look like a model of restraint.
 
But Strell, I'm not getting any outrage off of what camoor/capitalizt said at all. Perhaps my own natural state of mellow is so great that I am blind to righteous fury at this point. I don't think so, but that's a possibility.

I think it's far more likely that camoor simply wanted to steer the conversation into some other territory (Is God moral? Is worshiping God moral? Holy shit, "worshiping" only has one "p"? etc.). Though as I said, I'm lost as fuck, so it's just as likely that this whole thing is a prelude to a bunch of LOLcat posting.
 
[quote name='Strell']The larger point is that the idea that religious folk won't highlight the destructive powers of their deity is wrong. Hell, you can find no shortage of people downright happy to claim cataclysms to their godhead's doing - it's like some people are keeping score on a giant cosmic billboard.[/QUOTE]

That's not fair. Not all religions venerate violent spiritual beings.
 
Ugh. Christian bashing on CAG, haven't seen this since the last time I logged on CAG yesterday. Yeah there are some whacko Christians out there, no doubt, but the majority of Christians are normal law abiding citizens that go about their lives like "normal" members of society. Every religion has their whacko extremists, heck not even just religions every group of any kind out there have nut jobs. So lets always use the extremists as examples of how every single person in that specific group of people behave, this is the Internet after all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='cgarb84']Ugh. Christian bashing on CAG, haven't seen this since the last time I logged on CAG yesterday. Yeah there are some whacko Christians out there, no doubt, but the majority of Christians are normal law abiding citizens that go about there lives like "normal" members of society. Every religion has their whacko extremists, heck not even just religions every group of any kind out there have nut jobs. So lets always use the extremists as examples of how every single person in that specific group of people behave, this is the Internet after all.[/QUOTE]

The original point was a little more subtle.

Many cults have realized that if they label themselves as Christian and adapt the Christian mythology, they can avoid scrutiny.

I think Penn Jillette was the first guy who planted this idea in my mind. As Americans we can all get together and have a good laugh at the whacky Scientologists. But when it comes to cults we should be paying less attention to the beliefs and more attention to the actions.

Again, my original intent was not to talk about American Christianity as a whole, I'll change the title.
 
[quote name='camoor']The original point was a little more subtle.

Many cults have realized that if they label themselves as Christian and adapt the Christian mythology, they can avoid scrutiny.

I think Penn Jillette was the first guy who planted this idea in my mind. As Americans we can all get together and have a good laugh at the whacky Scientologists. But when it comes to cults we should be paying less attention to the beliefs and more attention to the actions.

Again, my original intent was not to talk about American Christianity as a whole, I'll change the title.[/QUOTE]


Definitely agree w/ this one,
 
[quote name='cgarb84']Fair enough. The original topic title was a bit misleading.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, it's the title of the article I posted which was a direct quote from the guy that went insane. I guess it makes more sense as a chapter title then as a thread title.
 
I agree that there as a society morals appear that we all seem to have in common. Most people will not want to harm someone else for no reason and at some points everyone offers help as well as receives. I can't say for certain but I think these morals will appear regardless of the influence of religion. Daroga mentioned above that there is an "innate" feeling for these concepts and that they are embodied by the 10 commandments. I really don't see a need for them.

There are huge ethical concerns that the commandments do not even begin to cover. Common, simple, examples... but I haven't seen this brought up yet, what if stealing $1000 (from someone that had millions) for medicine would save your child? Should this person be in Christian Hell? Or even killing someone that would have killed your wife (or you). Was it wrong?


My problem with religion is that it acts as a barrier to critical thinking, and promotes segregation with concepts like "my religion is right so yours must be wrong". Any strong belief system (such as a cult) can do this but religion is one that spreads very quickly and is allowed to spread because there is a fear (an extremely justified fear in some countries) of critically analyzing it.
 
[quote name='camoor']The original point was a little more subtle.

Many cults have realized that if they label themselves as Christian and adapt the Christian mythology, they can avoid scrutiny.

I think Penn Jillette was the first guy who planted this idea in my mind. As Americans we can all get together and have a good laugh at the whacky Scientologists. But when it comes to cults we should be paying less attention to the beliefs and more attention to the actions.

Again, my original intent was not to talk about American Christianity as a whole, I'll change the title.[/QUOTE]This we can certainly agree on.

For as much as the extremists annoy those outside of Christendom, you can't even begin to imagine how obnoxious it is to all of a sudden get lumped together with the nutjobs that are out there hiding behind something with Jesus' name written on it.
 
[quote name='daroga']This we can certainly agree on.

For as much as the extremists annoy those outside of Christendom, you can't even begin to imagine how obnoxious it is to all of a sudden get lumped together with the nutjobs that are out there hiding behind something with Jesus' name written on it.[/QUOTE]

I think I always resisted a spiritual understanding of the world because I didn't want to be one of those suckers who got conned. One of the stories I liked from the bible was the one about the moneylenders. Jesus was a guy who didn't put up a fight with the Romans, but he went after the moneylenders inside the church with a violent vengence. I always thought it was a rejection of base materialism in a sacred spiritual place. Even though I may not philosophically agree with his methodology, there's something satisfying about the image of the Christian God in man form reserving his worst outburst for opportunists who use his name. If Christianity is to be believed, it doesn't bode well for the majority of televangelists.
 
Your point is dead-on, camoor. Christianity is not about looking good or pretending to be good--it's about forgiveness for all our faults in Jesus. Anyone who preaches a "Christianity" that is wrapped up in how I ought to live rather than what Jesus did for me isn't worthy of that title at all.

It's always interesting to me the people who claim that Jesus preached toleration. The money lenders and his constant run-ins with the Pharisees show just the opposite. Jesus condemned not looking down on someone because of their sin (because we are all equally sinful in God's eyes), but never did condone the sin.

I fear for the majority of televangelists if they truly believe what they preach.
 
[quote name='camoor']

Who do you believe was responsible for Murray's actions? Was it wholly on Murray? Was it the different cults or goth culture he joined up with after trying to leave the type of Evangelical Christianity practiced by his parents? Was it the devil?[/QUOTE]

Camoor,

I read the thread and you asked a good question on page 2, but before I answer with my own beliefs I would like to know your answer.

Who do you believe was responsible for Murray's actions?

Also, and more importantly, who do you think is responsible for your actions?
 
[quote name='megma42']Camoor,

I read the thread and you asked a good question on page 2, but before I answer with my own beliefs I would like to know your answer.

Who do you believe was responsible for Murray's actions?

Also, and more importantly, who do you think is responsible for your actions?[/QUOTE]

I'm bored, so I'll answer with my beliefs.

Obviously Murray (or anyone else) is not a fully-controlled robot. But it's also obvious that everything everyone thinks or does does not pop into their head, fully uncaused and originating within them. So responsibility does not lie entirely on the individual.

Some people often say that things are a matter of self-control - reflecting a belief that control is ultimately from within oneself - that, for example, crimes are committed because of a lack of self-control. The reasoning going that one person commits a crime and another doesn't because the former lacks the self-control of the latter. It's actually kind of depressing since that would essentially mean that without sufficient self-control we would all be murdering and pillaging at every opportunity, but many would admit to believing that as well.

I disagree with that, however, and would argue that it's not really a matter of self-control, but motivation. Person A and person B would probably do pretty much the same thing, given the same situation, so it's not something that a person necessarily lacks within themselves. Of course this might not be entirely environmental (though I would say mostly) since there is the matter of genetics that might predispose someone to some behavior more so than someone else, but genetics are also situational, nobody chooses their own genes, so even though it's not a matter of environment it's still not a matter of individual control.

But, of course, I wouldn't take the logic so far as to say that nobody should be punished for what they do. Even if someone believed that someone's actions are fully caused and completely out of their control, they would think so because of environmental factors, and punishment is an environmental factor. So even if someone is ultimately not responsible for their actions, telling them they are responsible and punishing them for doing something wrong is a motivational factor that causes them to be more responsible and be less likely to do what they're being punished for. And that's how the system works for the most part, if you believed that someone was fully responsible for what they did and their thoughts and actions were wholly uncaused and generated entirely within themselves then you wouldn't have prison sentences, it wouldn't make any sense. If someone was uncaused they would be unchangeable and therefore if they ever committed a crime they would be imprisoned indefinitely or executed since they are incapable of changing.

So there, responsibility is on both the environmental factors (and therefore the people who are motivating a person to do things) as well as the individual.
 
[quote name='megma42']Camoor,

I read the thread and you asked a good question on page 2, but before I answer with my own beliefs I would like to know your answer.

Who do you believe was responsible for Murray's actions?

Also, and more importantly, who do you think is responsible for your actions?[/QUOTE]

Murray is responsible for his own actions. However in this case I do not believe he is wholly responsible.

As much as can be gleamed from the short article: Murray seemed to be a critical thinker lost in a very dogmatic and controlling environment. I'm sure the hypocrisy of the people his parents routinely praised, such as Ted Haggard, didn't help. Murray also seemed to be mentally unbalanced, at least at the end.

It doesn't seem to me that anyone was willing to meet this guy halfway. At this point in his life, Murray obviously wasn't suited for the Christianity practiced by his parents. Furthermore he had mental problems. So what was his parent's solution? According to the article it was more control, more monitoring, more of the forced brand of Evangelical Christianity they practiced. That's like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.

When he ran off to join all those other cults, IMO the game was lost. If you ask me, what was needed was outside help, a neutral third party.
 
[quote name='camoor']Murray is responsible for his own actions. However in this case I do not believe he is wholly responsible.

As much as can be gleamed from the short article: Murray seemed to be a critical thinker lost in a very dogmatic and controlling environment. I'm sure the hypocrisy of the people his parents routinely praised, such as Ted Haggard, didn't help. Murray also seemed to be mentally unbalanced, at least at the end.

It doesn't seem to me that anyone was willing to meet this guy halfway. At this point in his life, Murray obviously wasn't suited for the Christianity practiced by his parents. Furthermore he had mental problems. So what was his parent's solution? According to the article it was more control, more monitoring, more of the forced brand of Evangelical Christianity they practiced. That's like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.

When he ran off to join all those other cults, IMO the game was lost. If you ask me, what was needed was outside help, a neutral third party.[/QUOTE]


Thats very unfortunate for murray, scary cult though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top